Google

Monday, September 3, 2007

What, really, is Love?

Did you realise how much I beat about the bush last time and ended up not defining love?

It is complex and powerful. It confuses many people. Love is a spiritual phenomenon.

As "White Knight" says:

"On Earth, no one knows what love is. All we see and know is the effect of love."

The concept cannot be defined or confined in merely the physical realm. Which is why love seems to defy description. However, this physical realm is where we experience love's effects. And that part can be described.

Love is a continuum, but like the seven official colors in the rainbow, I've separated it, in my mind, into a few distinct concepts. I've written essays on the kinds of love I have personally experienced: The personality of love, the brotherly kind of love, the decision to love, and the passionate kind of love. My essays on love are written from the point of view of the lover, instead of the beloved.

Love: The Personality

Love is a great motivator. It causes us to behave in certain ways towards people. It causes us to risk our hearts, and can even cause us to risk our lives. If we ever wonder whether or not we truly love someone, we could ask ourselves, "would I die for him/her?" If the answer is, "in a heartbeat," then yes, it really is love. If we are not sure, then it is possible that we are holding something of ourselves back, in reserve. By holding back, we are "hedging our bets," which means we hope to survive the relationship, no matter what. Live through it. So, we certainly would not die for our beloved. Our lives and hearts are more important to us, in that case.

As Jesus Christ says:
"Greater love has no one than this: that he lay down his life for his friends."

And if we love someone to the point that we would die for them, can we not also live for them? If we are willing to lay down our lives for their sake, sacrificing something less should be a piece of cake. How ridiculous would it be to hear, "sure, I’d die for you honey, but I’m keeping my TV remote?"

And as Saint John wrote:
"We ought to lay down our lives for our brothers. If anyone has material possessions, and sees his brother in need, but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him? Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue, but with actions and in truth."

I have found that an open-handed policy in human relationships is very successful and rewarding. By this, I mean only when we stop holding tightly on to what we have, that our hands are also free to receive. Maybe twelve years ago, I really felt in need. So much so, that I felt that I didn’t have anything to spare. I didn’t give, I needed people to give to me. But, I never received anything. My soul only got more shriveled up. This was because I was focused on my own lack, and trying to get other people to fill it for me.

Finally, I realized that the only way for me to live, was to give love. I didn’t have much ability, but I gave all I had. That way, I became the conduit of love, and as it was blessing other people, I was blessed by love, too. Not merely because some loved in return, either.

The love that I possessed for them, nourished me. Because, for love to be fully experienced, it must be given. Receiving love is an external experience-- with some benefit, or course! But, if we give love, it makes us become love incarnate to someone! And when we are love, our souls live! The soul grows and blossoms. And as the soul grows, the ability to love even more, is increased. Happiness, and all sorts of good things result. But love is it’s own reward!

As Shakespeare wrote:
"My bounty is as boundless as the sea,
My love as deep; the more I give to thee,
The more I have, for both are infinite."

The personality of love is a state of being, where the person has become someone who automatically does the loving thing. Love incarnate. Gives. Sacrifices. Lays down his or her life. For everyone and anyone. Regardless of anyone’s supposed worthiness of being the beneficiary of such behavior. So, love’s personality does not judge. "You are human; my brother / sister, therefore I accept you, help you, treat you with respect."

As Mother Teresa said:
"If you judge someone, you have no time to love them."

Love’s personality can become angry when the beloved (humanity in general, or a specific individual) is mistreated. This will cause the lover to take up the cause, to help alleviate the suffering his/her beloved is being subjected to.

Love: The Personality is defined as a state of being the lover dwells in, which will cause him or her to act for the benefit of the beloved.


Love: The Brotherly

Whereas the personality of love is often motivated to act, the brotherly kind of love, is content to merely be. No actual giving to the beloved, or even interaction with the beloved is required. "Pure and chaste, from afar." ...Or, even close up. It is internal to the lover, and it is passive. A sweet, peaceful, contenting state of bliss is experienced. There is no pain or longing to express itself to the beloved, as with Love: The Passionate.

And, because it has no need to be expressed, there is no risk. The heart is not given away, so it does not feel vulnerable. The lack of pain and risk preserves the state of bliss.

There is also no need to ever receive anything from the beloved. If he or she is not aware of the lover’s existence, it makes no difference to the lover. He or she is content to love on, alone.

To the lover, it is the love he or she feels that is precious, moreso than the beloved. Therefore, the love is easily transferable to a new beloved. In fact, one can feel brotherly love toward any number of people, at the same time. It is not exclusive to one specific individual, as with Love: The Passionate.

As Emily Dickenson wrote:
"My business is to love. The mere sense of loving, is joy enough."

In order for the beloved to benefit from the love, he or she must be there, with the lover, and seek it out. The beloved must actively take advantage of the situation, or it will never be received.

Love: The Brotherly is defined as an internalized loving feeling about someone, which inspires a feeling of contentment and peace.


Love: The Decision

"Fall in love," is the phrase. When I first experienced this kind of love, I did actually have a sensation of falling. Sinking into a soft featherbed. Relaxing. Once I had let myself fall in love with my beloved, it was the easiest thing in the world. It felt very natural!

Before I came to the decision that I could let myself be in love with my beloved, however, I experienced some unease. Because I was not fully committed. To fall in love is to give one’s heart away. Could I trust my beloved with it? Would I be hurt? I had an approach/avoidance problem.

It took time, but my beloved made me fall in love, or rather, I let my beloved make me fall in love. And, I finally felt able to freely give my heart. With Love: The Decision, the lover has the potential for love in his or her heart, which can only truly be born with a decision to let oneself love. It is not like Passionate Love, with which one has no choice but to love. Decision Love exists because the lover lets it.

As Jean Anouilh said:
"Love is, above all, the gift of oneself."

Most Decision- Lovers fall in love because the beloved (purposefully, or through no fault of their own) convinces them that he or she is worthy of being trusted with the lover’s heart. Therefore, the lover can cite reasons why he or she is in love with the beloved: "His sense of humor," or, "she’s such a sweetie," et cetera.

Since reasons for being in love can be cited, Decision- Love is a conditional variety. We give our hearts away, usually on the condition that the beloved is deemed worthy of it. This way, the love has been earned. The beloved "made the cut." It is a "reward" for worthy attributes or behaviors.

So, on the other hand, if the beloved starts behaving unworthily-- in the lover’s mind-- he or she may choose to withdraw the love. Decide to not let him/herself love any longer. The love is allowed to exist by the discretion of the lover. The lover can either actively decide to stop, or passively, by allowing it to die through abuse or neglect. He or she has control, so he or she must sustain the love, rather than be sustained by it. Therefore, the lover must put conscious effort into keeping the love alive. It does not sustain itself.

Since Decision- Love is a conditional variety, many may not consider it real love. It is real, it just can be based on rational (relatively speaking) conditions. People fall (read: jump first, then they fall) in love, and fall out of love, all the time. In between, they do actually love their beloved. The beloved has their heart, there is just a string attached... It's not an eternal, divine type of love, which never ends no matter what. So, it's temporary. Therefore, Decision Love is a human-level love. It can and does pass away, just like we do. But, it's still love.

I have heard the phrase, "Love is not an emotion, it's a decision." If you can decide to love, you can decide to not love. This human love is based in our minds and hearts, not our spirits. So, it is perfectly reasonable that our minds would enter the equation, in deciding to love someone. And the emotions of our hearts playing a role in this kind of love is also perfectly reasonable.

Therefore, you cannot separate the Decision from the rationality of our minds and the emotions of our hearts. It is an emotion and it is a decision; and it is a (more or less) rational- and- emotional decision, which the logic of our minds and the feelings of our hearts help us make.

It is possible that we can choose to love, regardless of the worthiness of the beloved. We then would choose to love someone, in spite of any worthiness or lack thereof, on the beloved's part. We are able to choose to love regardless of worthiness, and can, at any time, choose to cease loving. For any reason, or no reason at all.

Love: The Decision is defined as a love that can be freely given to another at the discretion of the lover.

You've been reading much. Now, can you please tell me if you are in love?

Yours Truly,
Ferdinand Che

No comments: